Against Owning Information

[Tom]

I have to ask, if Doppel with his 0 dollars comes to my house and watches a movie on my TV is he "stealing" since you seem to insist on using that term for infringement? See it is not as black and white as you insist on making it with your stealing a car and returning it analogy. In my hypothetical he is within his and my fair use rights to view that DVD with me on my television, if he downloads it from a torrent and watches it on his own TV he is definitely infringing on the content producers copyright but it is in no way analogous to stealing a car and returning it. Note what I am defending here is the notion that in the Constitution Congress was given the power to grant "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." They didn't consider these things to be mere property such as an automobile the theft of which is covered by common law.

Your "fair use" doesn't include other's "fair use". Legally. How would that work ?

However, the copyright holder can decide to let you do what your asking, and if you read the terms for use of the dvd, it probably allows for such use as long as you aren't profiting from it by selling tickets or selling refreshments.

You are describing how IP gets it's designation as "property", legally. That doesn't change the fact that taking that property without compensation is theft.

Besdies IP, it's also possible to steal services. Again it's the actions of the perpetrator that define theft, not the actual injury to the victim.

 

[DaveSimmons]

IP and physical items are completely different, and so is the theft of them. The "value to the original owner" of IP is only what he gets from the end user. If an end users was never going to buy a piece of software it has no value. If you write a program, once compiled into a usable executable you can endlessly produce copies of it, at little to no cost, the same can not be said for a CPU, or a TV.

^ except that the parasites who take without payment do spend the money elsewhere, on PCs, hard drives, blank discs, ISP connections, cheetos and dew.

If they were unable to infringe any IP they would have to pay someone for their movies and games, or do without -- making their hardware purchases useless.

 

[Munky]

If something can be easily replicated, then it will be. The recording industry comes up with shaming language like "stealing" and bends the law to suit their outdated business model. If there's a way to turn one iphone into 10, then is that stealing too? I say no. Perhaps the companies whining about stealing should innovate products which can't be replicated or create something people actually want to buy.

 

[Doppel]

I know what the justifications for stealing IP are. That doesn't change the fact that it's exactly the same as stealing a physical object.

What matters is the lost value to the original owner. Value isn't limited to physical objects.

I don't want to have an endless debate with someone who thinks stealing is ok as long as the thief can't afford it or doesn't want to pay.

That position is never going to get anywhere in any organized society. Debating it is as pointless as discussing legalizing drugs.

We've already described quite unequivocally how stealing information is not the same as a physical item. Heck, have you ever had your car stolen and not even known? Because that's something I can do with information, but with your car not so much.

If you want to demonize people who make this argument instead of admitting that there is a difference, that's your prerogative and seems your intent. I am not even making a moral judgement, simply pointing out that, demonstrably, they are not the same thing. I'm sure intellectually you can appreciate that but for some reason want to continue on the slant that they are indifferent, which is baffling. If I steal some expensive graphics software worth $15k and spend a half hour tinkering with it and never use it again how much have I cost you; what is your net loss? What if I delete it after tinkering, how much then? Now, if I steal your $15k car, joy ride, and run it into a creek how much have I cost you; what is your net loss?

 

[JockoJohnson]

We've already described quite unequivocally how stealing information is not the same as a physical item. Heck, have you ever had your car stolen and not even known? Because that's something I can do with information, but with your car not so much.

If you want to demonize people who make this argument instead of admitting that there is a difference, that's your prerogative and seems your intent. I am not even making a moral judgement, simply pointing out that, demonstrably, they are not the same thing. I'm sure intellectually you can appreciate that but for some reason want to continue on the slant that they are indifferent, which is baffling. If I steal some expensive graphics software worth $15k and spend a half hour tinkering with it and never use it again how much have I cost you; what is your net loss? What if I delete it after tinkering, how much then? Now, if I steal your $15k car, joy ride, and run it into a creek how much have I cost you; what is your net loss?

Too much logic in that argument. It seems that Tom has an agenda or is just too set in his ways to recognize the difference. I admit, both are wrong but they are wrong for different reasons.

And the record industry isn't doing itself any favors by flat out lying to people when they say that x number of songs copied illegally is the same as all that money lost. As has been argued here previously, most of those songs are ones that would never have been purchased in the first place. When you have to lead with lies to try and make your case, you have a bad case.

Maybe they (movies, songs, etc.) should produce a better product so people want to buy it.

Also, the argument about all these creative geniuses just giving up because all of their IP is being infringed upon is bogus. What about opensource? There are people who want to actually contribute to society---you know, for the common good.

 

[Doppel]

When you have to lead with lies to try and make your case, you have a bad case.

Certainly. And much of what is stolen WOULD have otherwise been purchased. But NOT all of it. And the stuff that would not have been purchased, though "theft" represents $0 loss to the seller.

When a thief steals from an entity they have cost that entity:
1) Product cost (what it costs to create the item)
2) Margin (difference between cost and final sales price)

When a thief steals software the cost is essentially $0; it costs nothing to press CTRL-C, CTRL-V. So with, for argument's sake, a 100% margin, the thief has stolen margin. If that thief never could nor would pay for it, the margin was $0 anyway.

If a person with a net worth of $50 steals software that costs normally $500k and plays with it on his computer for 20 minutes, have they really cost that company $500K? Hell no. If that $50 person steals an exotic car worth $500k they have cost that owner $500k. This is the difference. Anybody can understand this.

 

[piasabird]

Ideas have to be genuinely unique and implementable before they can be protected. Building a car might have been some elses idea but it is far from unique. Maybe the guy that invented the Ox Cart could claim you violated his patent.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Certainly. And much of what is stolen WOULD have otherwise been purchased. But NOT all of it. And the stuff that would not have been purchased, though "theft" represents $0 loss to the seller.

When a thief steals from an entity they have cost that entity:
1) Product cost (what it costs to create the item)
2) Margin (difference between cost and final sales price)

When a thief steals software the cost is essentially $0; it costs nothing to press CTRL-C, CTRL-V. So with, for argument's sake, a 100% margin, the thief has stolen margin. If that thief never could nor would pay for it, the margin was $0 anyway.

If a person with a net worth of $50 steals software that costs normally $500k and plays with it on his computer for 20 minutes, have they really cost that company $500K? Hell no. If that $50 person steals an exotic car worth $500k they have cost that owner $500k. This is the difference. Anybody can understand this.

But most of the people stealing, sorry "infringing", are "infringing" $1 songs and $5 movies that they can easily afford, they just have no moral compass to tell them that being a parasite is wrong.

 

[JSt0rm]

But most of the people stealing, sorry "infringing", are "infringing" $1 songs and $5 movies that they can easily afford, they just have no moral compass to tell them that being a parasite is wrong.

and at the same time he will complain that video games are consolized bullshit.

 

[DaveSimmons]

. . . and buy a modded xbox so he can steal, um "infringe", those consolized games too.

 

[BoberFett]

I just remembered I song I heard recently. I suppose I stole that too, huh?

*Unauthorized memory detected, the amount stolen has been deducted from your account by the RIAA.*

 

[DaveSimmons]

Strawman is made of straw.

 

[xj0hnx]

. . . and buy a modded xbox so he can steal, um "infringe", those consolized games too.

The market solution there is that Xbox has banned, what, millions of those modded consoles for playing those "infringed" games online?

 

[BoberFett]

Strawman is made of straw.

Only because the technology doesn't currently exist.

 

[Capt Caveman]

OP = Anarchist Moran?

 

[Tom]

We've already described quite unequivocally how stealing information is not the same as a physical item. Heck, have you ever had your car stolen and not even known? Because that's something I can do with information, but with your car not so much.

If you want to demonize people who make this argument instead of admitting that there is a difference, that's your prerogative and seems your intent. I am not even making a moral judgement, simply pointing out that, demonstrably, they are not the same thing. I'm sure intellectually you can appreciate that but for some reason want to continue on the slant that they are indifferent, which is baffling. If I steal some expensive graphics software worth $15k and spend a half hour tinkering with it and never use it again how much have I cost you; what is your net loss? What if I delete it after tinkering, how much then? Now, if I steal your $15k car, joy ride, and run it into a creek how much have I cost you; what is your net loss?

You completely miss the point. Crimes are commited by perpetrators, not victims. The crime is defined by the perpetrator's actions, not the affect it has on the victim.

It is not acceptable in human society to take something without permission of the owner. That's been true for forever.

All during that time, thieves have justified their actions for exactly the same reasons you are. Those justifications are not logical, ethical, or workable. That is why society rejects them.